If the James play had happened in the EZ it would have been a TD. They have ruled that way several times. Once it is secured and the player is down it is a TD.

and it is why they need to change the rule. No one knows what a catch is.

When have they ruled it that way before?

I don't recall that.

I can dig it up but there have been several. Cook's catch in the EZ where he then falls OOB and bobbles the ball. ODB catch where he get the ball knocked from his hands just after getting the 2nd foot down. There was a GBv Dallas game where the WR goes up and gets the ball, comes down on 2 feet then gets the ball knocked away. All TDs. all controversial.

_________________"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers

Whatever side one falls on the Jesse James catch/no catch debate, I think it’s pretty clear that the call would have stood has it occurred in the Super Bowl. NFL didn’t want anything offensively successful that looked like a clear touchdown to millions of people, and was called a touchdown on the field, micromanaged into a reversal, rewarding a defense that had failed on the play. I think the first of the two eagles touchdowns that went to review demonstrates this more than the second, where multiple steps were taken and a reversal would have been a travesty.

James did nothing like take multiple steps. Not even close. I still think posters thinking the reversal was obviously flawed are delusional.

If only the fucker had tucked and rolled.

Don’t be full of shit. Earlier in this thread you said there were many reasons to overturn and not overturn. You said it wasn’t a slam dunk. Now you are saying those arguing it shouldn’t be overturned are delusional?

It appears you are the delusional one. Put another way, you said it was ambiguous yet you still think it is delusional to be upset that an ambiguous was overturned?

No, I think others are delusional who think the catch was OBVIOUSLY not "overturnable." My personal opinion is that it's obvious it was a non-catch according to the rules. But I can see the plausibility of other arguments.

What's the point of posting if you can't be full of shit? You're sucking the fun out of board membership.

No, I think others are delusional who think the catch was OBVIOUSLY not "overturnable." My personal opinion is that it's obvious it was a non-catch according to the rules. But I can see the plausibility of other arguments.

What's the point of posting if you can't be full of shit? You're sucking the fun out of board membership.

Let's try to pin your argument. Do you think the argument turns on a reading of the rule, or application of the facts? Said another way, do you think the rule is clear and the only question is whether James did enough to become a runner, or do you think the rule is unclear and the facts are clear?

The biggest problem is they could have ruled James catch a TD... and I doubt there would be any dispute. I believe they go looking for ways to call obvious catches "incomplete". Why - I don't know. Maybe it's the patriots, maybe it's just the lawyer in them, maybe they are just trying to prove how clever and smart they are. I don't know.

If you don't think that is a good standard, then take it up with the NFL.

Actually, in reality... YOU need to take it up with the NFL as they ruled it incomplete which anyone with vision and a non-bias opinion would agree with.

The ball touched the ground bro get over it.

I don't know, I think if you ask 100 NFL fans, they'd say it's a catch. I bet a lot of NE fans would have said they would have ruled it a catch. I know Bill Burr did the next day on the Mark Madden show.

In terms of any type of precedent - we don't really have a play like this. We have plays like Golden Tate catching a ball for a millisecond in the endzone before dropping it and having it intercepted and the play being called a TD... we have Gronk catching a ball and essentially sliding on the turf with the ball underneath him being called a TD. What we don't have is a guy catching a ball and twisting while lunging toward the endzone. This was a new situation, and the rule first reads that one body part (knee, elbow) is the same as two feet, but then only mentions second foot when determining a runner. The NFL could have easily interpreted the rule in the case of James that his single knee equaled the second foot as it does in the first part of the rule - I don't think anyone would have argued against that, and given the rest of the rule - it would have been a TD.

They could have also read the going to the ground rule to his knee being the initial contact with the ground - as the rule is essentially written for a diving catch or a leap. A guy falling to his knee has already caught the ball and made contact with the ground.

In fact, plenty of nonsense calls could be rectified if they simply read the english in the rule as it's written. Troy P's interception is a catch because he survives the initial contact with the ground - easy to understand, easy to rule.